Universal Access To All Knowledge
Home Donate | Store | Blog | FAQ | Jobs | Volunteer Positions | Contact | Bios | Forums | Projects | Terms, Privacy, & Copyright
Search: Advanced Search
Anonymous User (login or join us)
Upload

Reply to this post | Go Back
View Post [edit]

Poster: Administrator, Curator, or StaffThe_Emperor_Of_Television Date: Dec 7, 2009 12:57am
Forum: classic_tv Subject: Completely Off-Topic: To those who complain about "Plymouth News", there are current newscasts MUCH WORSE thanks to the Aussies

So, you complain about "Plymouth News Caravan". OK, so it isn't Murrow, but please be thankful it isn't as bad as the Australian media. Each of the five major broadcasters airs a newscast, and each one is, in its own special way, equally terrible.
What? You say I posted this before? Well, here is the stories in todays episode of "Today Tonight", a seven network "current affairs" show aired after the evening newscast (I will note there are actually three different versions of the show. The version I saw was the East Coast version): OK, we start with a story on Bed Bugs in a fancy hotel. Somewhat newsworthy, and not completely awful. Points deducted for suggesting DDT was a good thing. Next, we see a story about dangerous toys being seized. This story is actually completely newsworthy if lightweight and can be accepted as "mediocre news reporting", thus making it the most genuinely good moment in the episode. Things go downhill from there. The next story, about child-care, is a complete mess, and contradicts itself, and is generally aimless. Next, a story about rich people having their long-term homes on a large boat is hardly newsworthy, and it is offensive that this is being called "news". The nadir of the episode, though, is a story about a $5000 wedding between two dogs. This story would have been passable if treated as a novelty or delieved with a ironic wink (like those silly stories in old Movietone newsreels, which were obviously half-joking). Instead, they treat it with praise and treat it as a genuinely good idea and as a intelligent thing to do. As a novelty, it would be OK, but to treat this as a intelligent "delightful" action is pathetic.
The whole episode is filled with poor-editing, Inane narration, advertising passed-off as news (this includes the dog wedding), and a series of news stories almost completely lacking any value, this isn't just worse than "Plymouth News Caravan" (which actually does point out when the news stops and the advertising charts if you pay attention), it is worse than most of the output of FOX news, the BBC, and many other broadcasters. The entire thing is embarrassing and not even enjoyable as unintentionally funny.

(I would also like to point out that the evening newscast it followed was pathetic too, but I don't have the time to point out each moment of suckage during it).

Needless to say, the Australian media of today (and, in fact, for several decades) is abysmal.

This post was modified by The_Emperor_Of_Television on 2009-12-07 08:57:12

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: gellin'10 Date: Dec 7, 2009 2:31am
Forum: classic_tv Subject: Re: Completely Off-Topic: To those who complain about 'Plymouth News', there are current newscasts MUCH WORSE thanks to the Aussies

maybe try some underground 5 ring DOJO
http://tu.tv/videos/6-second-ko-havili-vs-muir-undergrou

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: Administrator, Curator, or StaffVideo-Cellar Date: Dec 7, 2009 2:24am
Forum: classic_tv Subject: Re: Completely Off-Topic: To those who complain about 'Plymouth News', there are current newscasts MUCH WORSE thanks to the Aussies

"A Current Affair" gave at least 10 mins to its review (advertisement) for the main Gold Coast theme parks. They all get worse in the non-ratings period as it coincides with the no-Media Watch period because, despite what they say in their "emails to Media Watch", they do care if a serious journalist makes fun of them over at the ABC. The worst part about TV journalism in Australia is that these shows can call themselves "award winning".

Terms of Use (10 Mar 2001)